building of the Annexation and Separation Wall, colonies, checkpoints and bypass roads. The owners are subsequently forbidden from using or accessing that land, even though the official ownership has not been transferred. This de facto confiscation is what is commonly known as denial of use and access and in most cases is utilized as an intermediary step that eventually results in de jure confiscation, when the transfer of ownership does occur. Privatization is the process by which the ownership of properties or land is transferred from the authorities and quasi-government organizations to the private sector. By privatizing land originally owned by Palestinians, Israel aims to make the confiscation permanent and erase possibilities of reversing the process within Israeli legal systems. Privatization is mainly used inside Israel, in cities such as Haifa, Acre or Jaffa, and but also in East Jerusalem against properties that belong to the Palestinian refugees and internally displaced persons (IDPs) who were or are residents of those cities. Whether through de facto or de jure confiscation, using force, legislation or recognition of the illegal actions of non-state actors, Israeli land confiscation is a policy violating international laws and principles. Moreover, the following cases demonstrate how the confiscation of Palestinian land is a discriminatory policy motivated by political aims that is used to displace Palestinians from their lands and homes. Evolution of Land Confiscation and Denial of Use Confiscation of land and denial of use and access in Mandate Palestine has taken place in various stages and through various mechanisms. During the British Mandate, it was suggested that all uncultivable land be registered in the name of the High Commissioner of Palestine, providing that it would be used for the good of the community.2 Following the 1948 War, known as the ‘Nakba’,3 and the forcible displacement of over 750,000 Palestinians to what came to be called the oPt and to neighboring countries, Israel established itself on 78 percent of the territory of Mandate Palestine.4 After 1948, Israel as the successor sovereign ‘inherited’ all the land that was registered in the High Commissioner’s name from the British government, which became dubbed as Israeli ‘state land’.5 Moreover, the properties of all the forcibly displaced 10 2 Bakir Abu Kishk, “Arab Lands and Israeli Policy,” Journal of Palestine Studies 11, no. 1 (1981):127 [hereinafter Abu Kishk, “Arab Lands”]. 3 Nakba means catastrophe in Arabic. 4 Jad Isaac, The Israel-Palestine Conflict: Parallel Discourses, (University of California Los Angeles Center for Middle East Development Series 1st ed., 2011), 68 [hereinafter Isaac, Parallel Discourses]. 5 Abu Kishk, “Arab Lands”, supra note 2.